A 2006 episode of ABC's news show Primetime called "Stepfamilies in Crisis" depicted a fifteen-year-old girl being punched by her stepfather. That girl, Kyle Nelson, is now twenty, and she wants to know why ABC didn't intervene. She's suing the network for "gross negligence," reports the Press Republican. According to the AP, by the time ABC aired the footage, the statute of limitations had expired, so it was too late to prosecute the abuse.
When the show aired, viewers were furious to see no one stepping in to stop the violence. ABC addressed the controversy by having Kyle on Good Morning America to defend her stepfather. Here's an excerpt from CNN's coverage of the fallout:
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KYLE NELSON, DAUGHTER: Stop! Stop! Stop!
VARGAS (voice-over): A father beating his 15-year-old daughter.
DON NELSON, FATHER: I have never (expletive deleted) lied to you. Never have I lied to you, you little bitch!
VARGAS: This is the "Prime Time" footage that`s causing a big-time fuss, shown to the public but not reported to the authorities. ABC aired this controversial footage Friday night as part of "Prime Time`s" special focusing on pressures that stepfamilies face. It`s very hard to watch.
It all starts as the Nelsons, a New York family, discuss grades and homework. When things get heated, suddenly it`s an argument, and the father is out of control. He unleashes his fury on his daughter. ABC`s cameras catch the repeated hits.
The daughter, Kyle, screams as her stepmother not only watches from the couch, but pretends to hit her, as well. This particular piece of tape has viewers and authorities outraged. Thousands flooding the ABC web site, angry and disgusted viewers wanting to know why the tape wasn`t handed over to authorities.
D. NELSON: You dirty little bitch!
VARGAS: ABC News didn`t think Kyle was in danger. In a statement posted on its web site, ABC says, "While we felt the incident in question was disturbing, it was the only scene of physical punishment in the hundreds of hours of footage that ABC News reviewed."
A discussion of moral vs. legal responsibility ensues.
It seems pretty clear that even if the First-Amendment-protected press had no legal responsibility to report the abuse, there's a pretty strong moral obligation to do so. Who were they to decide that the girl wasn't in danger?
ABC's weak response - "it was the only scene of physical punishment" - suggests parents are allowed to abuse their child without penalty if it only happens once (in view of cameras).
It will be fascinating to hear what the court has to say about it now.
Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 5)
46. Did everyone forget about OJ Simpson---what starts out as one physical blow can escalate to murder. Didn't you learn in kindergarten, hands are for helping, not hurting! It is every human beings' responsibility to help those who are being physically/mentally abused. It's one of the reasons we're put here on this place called Earth.
carolyn at 1:06PM on Feb 24th 2008
47. What ABC should have done was not intervene at the time, for that would have probably gotten themselves into a fight. However, IMMEDIATELY afterwards, give a copy to the police. They would still have their story and the child would have been protected. My father and step-mother physically and mentally abused myself and siblings in te 1970's. We were all emotionally scarred for years afterwards, but I don't wish to go further
into that. Point is, years later, I visited our
old next-door neighbors. The couple said they knew we were being abused, but they never said anything because they didn't feel it was "their place" to interfere. Then whose place was it? We could have been spared years of trauma if they had stepped forward, even anynominisly.
Vince at 6:33PM on Feb 23rd 2008
48. As a professional in the field of child abuse recognition training, and myself a suvivor of incest, I am in complete support of this victim and her lawsuit.
A 15 year-old girl is still a child who is not only deserving of protection from the incident of battering, but protection from media exploitation of the event. To be battered and called a "bitch" in front of an entire national audience is an outrage. As a traumatized 15 year old, she could not possibly offer any form of legal consent to this broadcast.
While it is questionable if journalists are considered mandated reporters of child abuse, it stands to reason that they have ethical obligations. I can understand a policy of non-interference if a journalist is documenting an act of nature (survival of the fittest), but to continue to film a human child being beaten is repulsive. It is equally repulsive that a network would think this kind of footage is appropriate to air. ABC has done a grave disservice to child victim's everywhere by perpetrating the dysfunctional belief that children have no rights and are not worthy of protection.
I have read many comments regarding the victim's choice to pursue this years later "for the money". Many question why she did not state her objections immediately. It is completely common and normal for traumatized people, especailly children, to be unable to act against their perpetrators or even speak about their abuse for many, many years. I know 60-year-old women who are finally disclosing their abuse as a child - for the first time. This victim has obviously matured and begun the process of healing to where she has become empowered to face her offenders.
There is no amount of money ABC can pay her that will ever truely compensate her for the shame and humiliation that she experienced.
Bonnie Bazill-Davis at 8:27PM on Feb 23rd 2008
49. I guess "Prime Time" is still the same. About 10 years ago, they did a show on "premature births - high incidence of cerebral palsy". The final show bore little resemblance to what was actually the point of allowing these people to view a family up close - who loved their afflicted daughter greatly - the show made it look like they only wanted to get away from her. It hurt all involved - they just went for the sensationalism.
Denise at 9:33PM on Feb 23rd 2008
50. How dare ABC not report this abuse caught on camera with clear vocals and pictures to the proper people. Not in danger? I was taken from my parents and put up for adoption when I was abused as a baby..not able to speak about what happened at that age I thank God someone was paying attention. Physical deliberate abuse either verbal or physical should never, ever be excused. Did they think the child in question wasn't fearing for her life? Even if they didn't think so? - Outraged
EmmyLth at 2:49AM on Feb 24th 2008
51. I THINK SHE SOULD HAVE CALLED THE COPS AT THAT TIME ,WHY SHE WANTS TO MAKE MONEY NOW.IN MY VIEW I THINK A GOOD PARENT IS THE ONE KEEPS CONTROL OVER THEY KIDS,SO KIDS DONT GET IN TO INLEGLY ACTIVITES
INLEGLY
raj at 2:46PM on Feb 24th 2008
52. Another sign that our civilization is collapsing. For further evidence, watch TV news any evening.
Bob at 2:51PM on Feb 24th 2008
53. When you do a documentary one you have to sign paperwork and the girl being underage probably didnt sign anything giving them permission to show everything that happens. Two, they should have edited that part out being that she was underage mainly for her privacy. Remember its millions of viewers that seen what happen and I am surprised that the Department of Social services didnt come in after witnessing the event to investigate the family. It may not be ABC's responsibility but the people in her community that knew the girl and the situation
shovan at 6:25PM on Feb 24th 2008
54. If you want to study people who were hit by parents, you will find the highest concentrations of them in prisons, poverty stricken areas, trailer parks, and mental institutions.
Many "parents" learned abuse from their parents. It is brutal, lazy, and utter cowardice. They justify it because they like the ability to hit someone with absoluteley no defense against them.
Murderers in jail are not controlled using violence and pain, but some will defend it on the most vulnerable and weak. Truly disgusting imitation parenting
jkkdan123 at 7:30PM on Feb 24th 2008
55. Has anyone thought how this might be effecting the other kids in the house. Now i beleave this went National again? Now these kids have to live through the reminder of the the night the show aired. Whos the abuser now? the press, the lawyer?the daughter? I'm sure these other kids are going throught hell with the reminder of 2 years ago. all those calls to CPS must have raised havic in that house.I hope the girl wins , but this does not need to be put in the public view again.
just me at 3:52PM on Jul 27th 2008
56. angel54, your remarks are about the stupidist thing i have ever heard. if you went through what you say you did as a child. then you of all people know that there was more to come for that girl after the cameras were turned off.you are the one that should be sued [for stupidity].my guess is you mistreat your kids that's why you dismissed this cruel treatment
Robert Almany at 5:24AM on Feb 25th 2008
57. The majority of these comments are rather disturbing. If you raise your child well, with love and good guidance, the chances are they will turn out well, even through adolescence. Angelcat, if you feel that the abuse you suffered as a child warranted posting here, then obviously it has made a tremendous impact on your life and it's irresponsible of you to condone this behavior or blame the child. As adults in a society, we do bear some social responsibility for one another. It's called progress.
HumanitarianRo at 6:33AM on Feb 25th 2008
58. What does INLEGLY mean?
Strados at 7:45AM on Feb 25th 2008
59. Perhaps this was in a state where corporal punishment is still legal? In which case, she really doesn't have any case.
Strados at 7:59AM on Feb 25th 2008
60. Okay folks, take a deep breath.
There's two debates here and you folks keep dancing around them.
The first is "Is it okay to physically and verbally harm your child?" In general, I'd say know, but it'd be a child by child basis.
The second is "How detacted do we want journalists to be." If journalists were doing a documentary on rape or snuff films, and filmed one taking place, would they be accessories? At what point does the media have a higher humanistic obligation to help the subjects of their media? On the other side of the spectrum we have journalists imbedded in New Orleans trying to act like 'heroes' while responding.
Now, part of the reason why the media is so detached, as it were, is because in order to document less accessable aspects of life they have to have a certain immunity to life that the rest of us aren't held to. In return they give us the opportunity to see and understand life and parts of life that we otherwise wouldn't.
But on the other hand, is there some median in which any person, be they journalist or not, is obligated to intervene on the subjects' behalf? Is it where a person is being emotionally harmed? Unlikely. What about physically harmed, as is the case of the daughter? What then of journalists in conflict areas? Do they become obligated to be peacekeepers? On the other hand, would you be happy to be assualted and beat up with a camera crew filming it ten feet away? I think that the absolute terminus though comes when the subject's life is in danger. At that point humanity trumps occupation.
So this is what I ask of you: ask yourselves if it is okay for you to be hurt and beaten while some one who could stop it doesn't. Forget about their occupation. Is it ever okay to not help some one when their lives and health are being endangered by another's violence?
Somber at 9:52AM on Feb 25th 2008